Talk:Vikings (TV series)/Archive 1

Ireland?
So supposedly just because this was shot in Ireland it makes it an Irish production? Despite it being commissioned by a US based channel...? I cant find any evidence to say that it was joint production. The Irish Film board source just said it was "made with the support" MisterShiney    ✉    11:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The given ref says it was produced by "Octagon Films" . Google's blurb on "Octagon Films" states that "Octagon Films is an Irish film & television production company with experience in feature film & TV series / projects".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * says: "is an international co-production between Ireland and Canada".  Sandstein   12:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But given that is a History Channel Production, and the wording on the said references to me says that History Channel paid them to do some of the production work on site. No other source - that I can find - says they provided any of the financial backing or that it is a joint production. Although reliable, I don't think the said source is able to stand up to scrutiny as a non biased source without anywhere else saying otherwise. MisterShiney    ✉    20:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at IMDb.com. They usually are quite correct: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2306299/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co The Irish Film Board provided funding.

IMDb does list the show as this: Details Country: Ireland|Canada

Very much an international co-productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VsanoJ (talk • contribs) 20:13, March 16, 2013

History Channel commissioned the show from World 2000 Entertainment/Octagon, based in Ireland, and Take5 Productions in Canada. The Irish Filmboard provided some funding. Showtime's The Tudors and The Borgia's were produced under the same set-up. Truly international co-productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.113.200 (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The American History channel did not commission the show. I really wish people would do more than superficial research before regurgitating buzz words as though honest fact. Despite the US media spin it isn't a production by or for History in the US. The idea for the show comes from a tv producer in Ireland by the name of Sherry Marsh. She and her partner pitched it to MGM who told them to take an international co-production route instead. They pitch to Morgan O’Sullivan of World 2000 Entertainment. He brings in the guys of Take 5 in Toronto. Shaw agrees to be the Canadian broadcaster and the Canada-Ireland production gets formalised. They use Morgan O’Sullivan's new studios but it is Octagon Films instead of World 2000 that actually produces the show. The Irish Film Board provides what for them is a rather massive funding decision for a single project of €¼ million. MGM threw a pile of money at it to secure rights to the show outside of Ireland and Canada. MGM then sells US broadcast (and streaming video etc) rights to AETN for their History channel. Cue the spin that it is a History original series they commissioned and are themselves producing. Since Shaw owns the Canadian History channel it is fair to say it is a "History original series" but not of the History channel most people would be thinking. It is also not the first scripted series to be shown on the Canadian History channel as The Kennedys preceded it by nearly 2 years. That is a promotion applicable only to the American History channel. The above is a bit simplified but it isn't too hard to find with a few minutes browsing the right key words on Google. Showtime does similar claims with The Borgias and The Tudors. If you get a copy of an episode of either of those shows from somewhere outside of the US it won't be branded as a Showtime programme or production. There are at least 2 different sets of opening credit text for The Borgias, a version shown on Showtime which gives prominence to it being a Showtime series and a version which has no mention at all of Showtime because they are after all just the American broadcaster of an Irish-Canadian-Hungarian show. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 00:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research. If we can reference this, it would be an interesting addition to the article.  Sandstein   11:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Thanks for the clarification guys and girls. MisterShiney    ✉    19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have followed the articles in regards to Vikings on iftn.ie since I first heard about the show last April, and I am very sorry that I thought History Channel was involved at an earlier stadge than they were. Thanks for explaining this in detail. Quite funny/sad that so may US channels claim to have "orgiginal" shows. Starz/Encore called "The Take" and "The Crimson Petal and the White" original shows. Starz will broadcast "The White Queen" later this year and callig it "a Starz orgiginal". I friend of mine acctually thought Misfits was a Hulu.com original.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.113.200 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy?
Since this is on the History Channel, perhaps it would be appropriate to discuss its factual accuracy. I'm about 10 minutes in to the first episode and the writing already feels more Hollywood than Harvard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanmccabe (talk • contribs) 13:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it is based on one of the sagas, and they're not exactly know for their historical accuracy to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.70.222 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which sagas? The story appears to be completely made up. That part of the article needs to be clarified and referenced. --Tokle (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm pretty sure the History Channel was like "lets make a tv show about a viking and *throws dart at dart board of famous vikings* it's going to be Ragnar Lodbrok." I think that about sums it up. —   - dain   omite    20:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to say that the story itself is not based on any sagas, but some characters and events might have been. --Tokle (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, great point! Thank you. —  - dain   omite    17:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the article about factual inaccuracies is fairly truthful...until the end, where it exposes itself as being highly POV, and not RS. The section at the end, stating:
 * "In other words, the liberals were autocratic and freedom-hating, and the conservatives were democratic and freedom-loving. Very much like our own time. Which probably explains why the people at the History Channel got it so wrong. Telling it right would be Hollywood blasphemy."
 * ...pretty much shows the author to be ignorant of both history and political science. There's GOTTA be a better, RS article out there to show that the show gets a lot of things wrong. -- Bryon Morrigan --
 * This was a disappointing opinion piece, I put it down as "What he wants to know, basically, is: If the Vikings were around today, would they vote Democrat or Republican?" Not that I have major objections to his list (apart from as an approach to history), or any objections to it staying until something better is found.


 * There is a bigger question though, what is "accurate"? There is a growing body of archaeological evidence, but few written sources, especially around the year 800, and like also elsewhere those sources can be partly or fully fictional. We have a broad idea of what society would be in Scandinavia at that era, but it is hard to exclude anything. The attack on Lindisfarne almost certainly didn't happen as described, but we can't rule that out either. Most of the Ragnar as a Viking Christopher Columbus figure and the navigation stuff likewise. I can pick one mistake/inconsistency easily. Ragnar's farm is depicted as being in Western Norway (neither Denmark, Sweden, nor Southern Norway has that kind of fjords) and the narrative specifically say they travel due west, but that would lead them to America, not to Britain, assuming they were not lucky enough to hit one of the few intervening islands. This kind of nitpicking we can do, but very little overarching. The figure of Ragnar is semi-mythological, how would you judge the accuracy of Robin Hood (no, I don't mean his aim)? jax (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk 14:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur, I'll do some searching this afternoon in my free time and hopefully I can find some stuff.—  - dain   omite    17:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd welcome that. But being politically opinionated (or holding a "wrong" political opinion) does not disqualify an author or a publication from being a reliable source for a non-political purpose. We don't quote Lars Walker, the author of, or The American Spectator for their political views, but rather for their analysis of Viking history as portrayed in a TV series. The actual problem is that Walker does not seem to be a historian, but "only" a translator. It would be certainly much preferable to be able to cite an academic historian.  Sandstein   18:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough, but if we can find another source that doesn't have a bone to pick (other bashing the historical inaccuracy) it would be better to have. In fact I would say add a new one and leave the current (preferably with the more NPOV article cited first) if there isn't too much overlap in the information provided, as the current source is rather correct in most of what it says.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.87.22 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

the travel bit seems fairly accurate and is historically consistent. see here(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vikings-Voyages.png) for map dealing with viking travel routes and depicting areas of viking settlements, containing one area describable as western norway. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vestlandet_in_Norway_(plus).svg) including fjords. going west through a storm plus using this remarkable but imprecise navigational technique using a sun-stone and a bearing-plate in conjunction with the oceanic currents (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Ocean_currents_1943_for_colorblind_users.png) can plausibly land you in the edinburgh area. and despite being the new one here i'd really like the american spectator bit gone, since it fakes facts in order to be "right". his interpretation of reality omits facts to suit his oppinion, or yet worse, for lack of effort, which would reduce the article to a mere blogrant speaking in terms of "journalism". since one could credibly argue for his or the disputable channels side, i suggest to cut it, since it really doesn't make ne valid point as far as i can see (except for maybe quoting tacitus, but if that is all his knowledge about germanic tribes, it is about as extensive as his knowledge about the european north during that time in general seems to be...)19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Rayakrast (talk)

Hi, Could you please tell me why the Lars Walker fluff remains in the 'historical accuracy' section, when a Professor of History statement regarding the show, and indirectly the point raised by 'walker' is deleted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.139.10 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not a "fan" of the Lars Walker bit, but the stuff added from Winroth was not addressing anything about the show at all, nor was it countering Walker's assertions. The show depicts autocratic rule at home in Scandinavia, which is incorrect, as the Heathens were more "democratic" than that...and Walker points this out.  All that Anders Winroth said was that they did not "import" their democratic style into other countries (something that has not been portrayed on the TV show)...or at least, Winroth made a sweeping statement about such things, which is not altogether true.  (It did happen...but it may be "romantic" to think it happened on as large a scale as some would like to believe...)  Either way, democracy of any kind has always been a "Pagan" idea, and it would be "nice" if the TV show would actually show some of the positive aspects of Heathen society, rather than just making it a series of rapes and murders.  (Hell, they even included the famous "everybody spit and blow your nose into a bowl!" scene from Ibn Fadlan's account, even though historians nowadays know that they were extremely fastidious about cleanliness.)  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  14:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this 'pagan' parliamentary democracy actually instituted intially in Iceland rather than Scandanavia?. It seems quite far fetched to believe democracy is simply a pagan ideal. Though there is some talk of early British tribes 'electing' their leaders centuries before the Viking raids and settlements. I would think if the Lars Walker criticism is to remain, then surely it should reflect the series factual and historical inaccuracies rather than simply his point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.139.10 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Bryon Morrigan is right. This is about this edit. I removed the quote by Winroth not because it was incorrect, but because it has nothing to do with the historical accuracy of the series, which does not deal with the Vikings exporting democracy (or anything else) to England. The issue of who pioneered democracy in northern Europe also has nothing to do with the series. Whether Walker's content should remain is yet another matter altogether. I read the discussion above as all agreeing that it would be better to have a better source (i.e., a historian who does not also rant about contemporary U.S. political issues), but nobody has so far found fault with the substance of Walker's criticism, i.e., that the series inaccurately depicts Viking geographical knowledge and internal politics.  Sandstein   16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Rollo". I see someone has added a citation that shows that History Channel is INDEED promoting the absurd idea that the show's "Rollo" is in fact the historical "Rollo" who founded Normandy. Um...the TV show VIKINGS begins in 793CE, and the attack on Lindisfarne, which takes place in 793CE, occurs in Episode 2. Well, the historical Rollo was not Ragnar's brother, and he was not born until 846CE. There is no conceivable way that the Rollo character could be "great great grandfather" of someone born in 1028CE. Even the historical Rollo, born in 846CE, was William the Conquerer's "great great great great grandfather." What's next? Horned helmets? So far, about the only historically accurate things I've seen on this TV show are the hair styles...-- Bryon Morrigan --  Talk  19:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah... this show is absolutely ridiculous in that sense. I stopped watching it for these reasons. Right when I think the history channel was getting back to history.... sigh... I think I've lost all faith in the "history" channel.—  - dain   omite    03:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This should not be on the History channel... it is a great fictional drama... loving it but it is fiction. Three historical accuracy points need to be made... (1) as already alluded to... if you sale due East from Northumberland you hit Denmark. (2) Ragnar most likely died in 865 because his sons avenged his death shortly afterwards in 867... Ragnar also died after being captured by the then king of Northumberland during a raid that went wrong (shipwrecked and stranded is the saga account)... so it is very unlikely that he took part in the Lindisfarne raid as that would make him more than 80 years old during the raid in which he eventually gets caught... but more importantly it makes Aella who is killed by Ragnar's sons in 867 even older. Besides Aella was only King for a very short time period and certainly not during the Lindisfarne raids. (3) Cuthbert died 106 years before the Lindisfarne raid... so was hardly abbot at the time. So all in all... a nice fictional drama but historical accuracy was left at the door when this was made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.117.197 (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 3 refers to an article that is not produced by an historian but is a piece of political journalism that openly admits to a biased perspective, ^ Walker, Lars (12 March 2013). "History Channel Gets Vikings Precisely Wrong". The American Spectator. Retrieved 12 March 2013. The article is published in a publication which is self-described as Conservative Journalism and whose agenda is to interpret all things through an ideological lens. Using this as a reference about historical accuracy is inappropriate in this respect, specifically when the articles author openly states his political bias at the end of the article. This puts his historical analysis into question.It's objectivity is set aside in place of the goal of depicting liberal politics as freedom-hating, which is absurd, particularly in the context of a section on the historical accuracy of a television program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.43.47 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jarl or Earl
So how is it? When I watched the series I've heard "Jarl" and I think it's really suppose to be a Jarl.Spillik (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the series website lists him as "Earl", and we have to follow that.  Sandstein   23:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fail me...Spillik (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jarl is the Scandinavian equivalent to an Earl. This has all to do with translation. VsanoJ (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast
The broadcast information is out of date. It says currently it has premièred in Ireland which is not true, I also believe it hasn't been broadcast in the UK either, but I can't find any up to date information about planned Irish(/UK) broadcasts. Can anyone? 79.97.231.44 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Cleefa

No Mention of Sigurd
When it come to the mention of Aslaug from the Volsunga Saga in the characters list, there is no mention of Sigurd, her father.

Anonymous173.74.57.205 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Connect the dots the right way, please
While this is a series about historical characters, I think people need reminding that you need to cite within the context of sources speaking about the series the historical connections between the characters of this series to those persons from history. For example, some people have enough historical knowledge to know that Aslaug was the daughter of Sigurd and Beunhilde, but no one has added references from a source reviewing the series that makes that connection. Without these, they are just names of tv series characters - without historical connection. We as editors cannot make that connection, as it is Original Research, and more specifically, Synthesis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Edit-Warring Over Christian Bias
No serious scholar actually believes that the Christian accounts of the Vikings are in any way "objective", particularly since they were mostly written by Christian clergymen who had never been within a hundred miles of a Viking raid. I can't even imagine someone taking the Christian accounts at face value. It's like accepting the Christian accounts of the Crusades without any criticism. And finally, if the people who keep deleting that line from the article would actually READ the citation, you'd see that the sentence is backed up by the article. Now stop bringing your NPOV historical ignorance to this article. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  00:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The main argument here is that they were written by groups of people that where in conflict with the Norsemen. While religion does play a part, it is not THE sole basis of complete lack of objectiveness, right? You can still be a Viking and a christian. The guys that served in the Valgarian guard, many of whom were Christians were still Vikings, or....? Did Harald Blåtand stop being a so-called Viking when he converted, and became something else but a Viking? (If we can use that therm since they did not call themselfs that)I am not saying the accounts by Christian clergymen are what so ever reliable, but this was not a religious conflict. As for my historical ignorance, I am not so sure, but I have been to Gamla Uppsala more times than I can count, so I hope I picked up something. VsanoJ (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This series is about the early Viking raids and Ragnar Lodbrok. It has nothing to do with 11th century Vikings who converted to Christianity, and you are just being ridiculous.  --  Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  00:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous, no need for name calling.

What i am TRYING (but failing) to say is that the conflict at hand was not mainly a religious one. You obviously have read up on the topic, I grew up in Uppsala so it is kind of hard to NOT pick up a thing or two. The main "problem" here is that the people of Scandinavia raided, the folks that got raided wrote about it...and they were not too happy. The main issue is not religon, right? I do not say that because I go to church 8 times a week or not (I don't.) I stress this because this was not a religious conflict, and it sounds as if yoya are trying to stress such a point. (If that is not the case, I am sorry)VsanoJ (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, a "Yank" dissing a Swede because he "does not know about Vikings". I never saw that happening....... :-)64.203.182.109 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a "Yank" with a Master's Degree in Ancient History...for the record... -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  22:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little calming down is called for here. As you might have noticed in the section below, this topic was largely addressed there. If you are the Pope or a degree holder in Way Back Times, we - bluntly put - don't give your opinion a slim rat's fart here in Wikipedia. Period. If you have a reference speaking in terms of the series and not about actual history, and its from a verifiable, neutral and reliable source, it goes in. If it fails any part of that, it does not. Stay on target, people. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. This discussion is fairly old now, but this idea that being born in Scandinavia makes you an "expert" in Viking history is absurd, just as it would be absurd to assume that being born in the USA makes you an "expert" in American History.  Such nonsense should be ridiculed.  Now as to your second issue, the sentence (which has since been removed) that caused this discussion cited an interview with the creator of the show, where he stated: “I wanted to tell the story from the Vikings’ point of view, because their history was written by Christian monks, basically, whose job it was to exaggerate their violence.”  I can easily point to a bajillion RS citations discussing the Christian bias of most accounts of the Vikings, but you're asking for ones dealing directly with the TV show.  No serious historian still accepts that "narrative" as historically objective or accurate.  But if you want a reference directly dealing with the TV show, you have it right there.  The creator is intending to refute the Christian bias, and tell if from the Vikings' point of view.  This is not really disputable.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  13:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to stop you right after those first three sentences. No one deserves to be ridiculed for voicing an opinion here in the discussion area - except for those opinions which attack others. Of course there are opinions which are shallow, foolish or ill-thought, but those can be addressed through calm discussion. If I had started my initial post by calling you an ass-clown with the intellectual depth of a rain puddle, it would become so much harder to actually get anything done, as you would take offense at my somewhat callous evaluation of your posts. I get that you are impatient with others; I am, too (esp. with so very little time in which to actually edit), but you need to make the effort, so that other editors can learn and grow as well. Ridiculing them only creates a hostile environment and more problems than you or anyone else would enjoy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Danish broadcast
It was aired ar four Saturdays. I did.'t even notice the premiere. But then followed two episodes with a length of little more than 90 min. each. And the last Saturday the episode durated for 130 min. So perhaps (but I didn't watch it, the first episode was aired as one of "normal 45 min lenght". I.o.w. the series must have been aired as 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 episodes. I watched the three last Saturdays. I wright this only to explain my previos edit reguarding the Danish broadcasts, I thought it was ten episodes. Boeing720 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jarl vs. earl
Are the cites from RS speaking in terms of the television series that reinforce the use of 'Earl' or 'Jarl'? We do not need a history lesson; we simply need to have a source or three that points out what is being used. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * History Channel calls Thorbjørn Harr's character "Jarl", will that suffice as a source? 1. I agree that it is a bit silly to use the Scandinavian and the English term, but we can not change the production. Look at WWII films, Mr. and Herr. is used back and forth. VsanoJ (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is an Huffington Post interview with series creator, producer and writer Michael Hirst, and he uses the term "Jarl" 2, and here is another interview with Hirst, 3 and yet again he refers to him as "Jarl Borg", but strangely enough says
 * He’s a very interesting character played wonderfully by [Thorbjørn Harr] and to let you into a little secret, I couldn’t think of what to call him. My favorite tennis player of all time is Björn Borg, so I called him Jarl Borg – Jarl is another word for Earl, so he’s Earl Borg. VsanoJ (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it OK to change his name to Jarl Borg now, or will I be dragged outside like the thrall I am, and beaten with the tail of Ratatoskr? :-)  VsanoJ (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC))
 * What do others think? Myself, I think the 'beating with a tail' thing, seems a bit extreme, but hey - whatever gets you through the night. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, for some reason, it seems that Haraldson and Bjarni are both referred to as "Earl", while Borg is referred to as "Jarl". Looking at the IMDB page, that appears how the characters are "officially" named.  Maybe they changed their mind, mid-season, when people complained about the "Earl" thing?  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Or MAYBE Michael Hirst uses the term as a name, as with Swedish screen "legend" Jarl Kulle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarl_Kulle or Norwegian athletes Jarl Espen Ygranes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarl_Espen_Ygranes and Jarl André Storbæk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarl_Andr%C3%A9_Storb%C3%A6k It is also a last name in Sweden. Of course, no one would have used Jarl as a name back in those days...  VsanoJ (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is here a source that notes the discrepancy? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In "Jarl Kulle" (who indeed was a famous Swedish actor), "Jarl" is only a name. The old title "Jarl" equals "Earl" however, but is indeed very old and out of use for centuries. It was changed (under German influence) to Greve (from German "Graf"). I assume that English titles "Earl" and "Count" are at the same level just like "Jarl" and "Greve". Boeing720 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

How many sons?
How many sons do Ragnar and Aslaug have? The article states "Four years pass: Aslaug is now ruling with Ragnar and raising their son." However, if you watched episode 2 of the second season, they have two sons already and Aslaug, who is clearly present, states she's carrying their third. Previews for episode three show that son being born in that episode, but we can ignore him for the moment as the recent updates pertain to episodes 201 and 202 of season two. The show's writer and executive producer, Michael Hirst, even says in the inside look at the episode "you'll be rather surprised to find that Princess Aslaug, in the meantime, has had two new children." http://www.history.com/shows/vikings/videos/inside-look-ep-202-invasion?m=5189719baf036&s=All&f=1&free=false. Ragnar's visit to the seer has Ragnar stating that the gods gave him sons as promised, which seems to confirm that both children are sons and links back to episode 108 of season one. Ragnar also makes a point of asking about Bjorn, his eldest son and only remaining child via Lagethra, which further seems to confirm these two children are both sons. http://www.history.com/shows/vikings/videos/ragnar-consults-the-seer?m=5189719baf036&s=All&f=1&free=false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.203.70 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the land army sizes
Isn't it very unusual to depict important confrontations especially under the direct command of a monarch to involve a small number of combatants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.239.128 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracy.
The first issue I'd like to address is the absurdity of the following statement:


 * Regarding the historical accuracy of the show, showrunner Michael Hirst comments that “I especially had to take liberties with ‘Vikings’ because no one knows for sure what happened in the Dark Ages" and that “we want people to watch it. A historical account of the Vikings would reach hundreds, occasionally thousands, of people. Here we’ve got to reach millions.”[49]

This would be the equivalent of adding to every Insane Clown Posse's album article their ignorant quotes about magnets--where they admitted their ignorance to magnetism and instead supposed that it was some form of magic--and I would argue that Michael Hirsts comment is just as absurd.

"No one knows for sure what happened in the Dark Ages" -- except every high school student (at least where I live) and those strange people called, what were they? Histologists? Oh, wait, no. Historians! And archaeologists, let's not forget them. And maybe even scientologists. Oh, wait. No. Not the last one. But pretty sure the other three are pretty much clued up given the wonderfully preserved towns, boats, weapons, and writings of the Vikings.

His argument that historical accuracy would reach hundreds / thousands as opposed to millions is also either head injury bordering on severe mental retardation at best, or just horrific public relations bollocks spin at worst. The audience reach if Vikings had axes instead of spears, and didn't incessantly scream "SHIELD WAAALLLLL!"--yes, vikings never used a shield wall, their shields were not anywhere near the design required for such, and a shield wall was a Roman tactic two thousand years earlier used (sparingly, quite rarely in fact, and only if siege equipment was unavailable which was infrequent during sieges where passing archers or slingers was required to approach a breach or attempt a breach)--so again I question the inclusion of such an idiotic comment when it's relevancy is not in defense or justification but rather someone mumbling random words thinking that they are saying something when in fact they are just making vacuous noises.

I am surprised no one has addressed the fact that the battle techniques used are completely Hollywood (see: bullshit) and are quite literally an affront not just to history, but to common sense. Vikings used axes, and didn't use shield walls. Those are the two most commonly occuring blaring errors every high school kid would note, but we've omitted it? Surely someone has mentioned this and there are some primary sources online? It's actively mocked on the TV tropes website, so surely ... surely? .__. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Vikings used axes  as well as swords. The skjaldborg (shield wall) was used especially by the Vikings. Seems you are a bit quick on judging things as "Hollywood"... -- 77.176.89.191 (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

what's up with the sentence by itself in this section regarding 'licking the hand'? It makes no sense, what does it refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.232.206 (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

plot synopsis possible mistakes
Didn't want to edit the season 2 bit in case im wrong but i think young beorn bribed the judge not ragnar and horik wasnt tricking jarl borg he just ran out of time to free him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.86.236 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

European/International edition
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/02/vikings-finale-season-2_n_5241946.html Should this information be included? VsanoJ (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Season 2 plot section
IMHO the section Season 2 (2014) is a bit too long, and should be trimmed to about the same length as "Season 1 (2013)", with the excess material moved to its own (existing) article.—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Earl vs. Jarl
There is much inconsistency in whether certain characters are titled as "Earl" or "Jarl". The two words are basically different languages' terms for the same title, but the show seems to use them interchangeably depending on the character in question. The show's official website is ambivalent: one character may be "Earl" (Haraldson) while another is "Jarl" (Borg), and the website doesn't appear to say anything at all about recurring characters that aren't cast regulars (such as Lagertha's second husband). I would expect that where the official site states the title, we should use that, but given the show's own inconsistency in title usage, is there a standard we should follow if we can't make a definitive determination from the actual show footage?

Quantumpanda (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Cinematic errors
I removed the below section from the main article as it does not contain a single source, appears to be original research (however accurate it may be) and is a rather too indepth description of this inconsequential 'cinematic error'. I am sure there are many similar errors in the show - but it is a fantasy and not a documentary and therefore we should accept towns of all names and scenery of all kinds.

The second season mentions a fictional town "Cattegat" as the residence of the Vikings which the series follows. But still the surroundings are full of high mountains, like around Norwegian fjords. In reality, Cattegat is the sea between Jutland and the southern Scandinavian peninsula. Also the Danish islands Fyn and Zealand have fjords which connect to Cattegat. But all Danish fjords are surrounded by flat agricultural areas, where the bedrock seldomly is seen at all. There are simply no mountains surrounding any part of Cattegat. This is also the case for the part of the Scandinavian peninsula which borders to Cattegat and today belongs to Sweden. The Swedish western coast also lacks fjords (and indeed high mountains) south of Gothenburg. Cattegat's northern boundary goes between Gothenburg and the northernmost point of Jutland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.84.126 (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary Spoilers!!
Is it needed to say that Ragnar has two wifes right in the description of the series? I was very disappointed upon reading that before watching the second season...
 * Wikipedia does not omit spoilers, see WP:SPOILERS. Besides, the sagas about Ragnar have spoiled his life story for some 1,000 years now.  Sandstein   23:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Sandstein, your snarky comment does not answer the question asked: is the spoiler needed in the description? According to the page you posted "Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." The spoiler certainly doesn't address any of those descriptions.
 * Additionally, in the same article, the section on "why spoiler warnings are no longer used", "Sections that frequently contain spoiler warnings—such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. Therefore, further disclaimers would be redundant and unnecessary."
 * For both of those reasons, I think it is not unreasonable for the user to ask "Is it needed to say that Ragnar has two wifes right in the description of the series?"

87.115.84.126 (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Far from King Sandsteins biggest fan he is 100 percent correct in this instance. Mark your calender it may be the last and possibly the first time this has happened. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is necessary to because they are major characters, and it is usual to include these - and a brief synopsis of the setting or premise - in a lead paragraph.  Sandstein   12:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The King has spoken! With that setteled, could I direct you to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vikings_(TV_series)#Cinematic_errors
 * I removed the section wholesale as it is ridiculously detailed analysis/original research and seemed unnotable. For a start it refers to "Cattegat" whereas the rest of the article refers to the town as "Kattegat" - to say that it seems out of place is an understatement...


 * My removal has been reverted twice for no other reason than editors throwing their weight around. I was just being bold.

87.115.84.126 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd personally agree with that removal. I didn't really like that section. I personally added the word "fictional" to imply "yeah but this Kattegat place might as well be a fictional village which no longer exists". I didn't want to remove the section completely because I knew the person who put it there would probably revert my removal, or that it being there meant that someone more experienced probably made the decision to keep it a few times. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DVD's
Who cares about the regional distributions for DVD's!!!??

It makes no difference these days and in fact it has made no difference in the last 10 years.

Answer: This is my opinion only, but based on my experience with international distribution, if there is a regional difference in release dates or available content, it should matter. If the discs are region-coded, regardless of whether there are any other differences, it matters. Despite your claim, it still makes a great deal of difference in many releases, especially with non-US productions or releases. I cannot vouch for whether or not it matters in this specific case, but your question implied that you're referring to DVDs in general.

(Note: The original question was unsigned and is not mine. My comment begins with "Answer:".)

Quantumpanda (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, you might not care about DVD releases, but many people in the world do. I personally don't use DVDs, but I know of many people who buy them for sentimental value, and I know that many people in the world (remember Wikipedia is global) don't have the luxury of online streaming services but still happen to have access to a DVD rental store. I think it's very relevant, for that reason. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Real Vikings
History (Canada) aired a series associated with this in 2016, "Age of Invasion" debuted February 13 and "Rise of the Pagans" debuted February 20. I don't think there are any others because http://www.history.ca/vikings/video/#vikings/video/real-vikings describes it as being a 2-part series. It's listed alongside Vikings: A World Revealed and Athelstan's Journal and Secrets of the Vikings. I don't think these 4 things necessarily warrant their own articles but I think it would be good if the names all redirected to mentions about them on the larger List of Vikings episodes or something. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sexual content
When this show started I recall reading some criticism over the fact that History, a documentary channel generally aimed at families, was producing a series with explicit sex scenes. I'm trying to find the reviews but they've been buried in google somewhere. I think this should be noted (if there are sources available) because this is a show airing on a network where such content is not expected (at least in Canada, History is generally considered along the same lines as Discovery Channel and at least until a few years ago any movies that were shown were generally edited for content). Anecdotally I know of a few people who were offended by it (and by the violence), with at least one planning to drop History as a result once a la carte cable packages become available here in a few weeks, but obviously they aren't sources for this! 68.146.233.86 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Languages
An interesting aspect of this series that bears mention is the frequent use of the original languages: Old Norse, Old English, and in the Paris episodes, some Old French. I don't know what information about this has been published.Bill (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox edit
Please see Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes: "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (...). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

For example, it does not need to list all actors in the series -- they cannot all be starring. And yes, generally, nn notable entities can be dispensed with, as they are not "key facts". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)